DETAILED ACTION
Restriction/Election Requirement
In response to the claims filed 10/10/2024, the Office issued a Restriction/Election Requirement on 07/30/2026. The Office required restriction between the invention of Group I (Claims 1-9), Group II (Claims 10-18) and Group III (Claims 19-20). Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 08/04/2026 is acknowledged. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed.
Accordingly, Claims 1-9 will be examined herein on the merits. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Examiner’s Notes
It appears Applicant has legal representation, but a valid power of attorney has not been filed in the present application. Providing representative information in an Application Data Sheet (ADS) does not constitute a power of attorney. See 37 CFR 1.76(b)(4) and MPEP § 408. For information on appointing a power of attorney, see MPEP § 402.02 et seq. Since no power of attorney (POA) is found in the record, this correspondence is with the customer number. Absent the power of attorney Examiner cannot discuss the merits of the case with the customer. It is respectfully suggested that a POA be filed in this case as soon as possible.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 10/10/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Promoting Compact Prosecution
Under the principles of compact prosecution, each claim in the instant patent application examined on the merits has been reviewed for compliance with every statutory requirement for patentability, even if one or more claims are found to be deficient with respect to some statutory requirement. The examiner has comprehensively stated reasons and bases for rejecting claims in the first Office action. Whenever practicable, examiner has indicated how rejections may be overcome and how problems may be resolved. Where a rejection not based on prior art is proper (lack of adequate written description, enablement, or utility, etc.), such rejection(s) is stated with a full development of the reasons rather than by a mere conclusion. Discussions between an applicant and an examiner may be indispensable to advance the prosecution of a patent application, especially in the case where it is not practicable to indicate within the written record how problems may be resolved and/or how rejections may be overcome. The examiner promotes interviews that improve the mutual understanding of specific issues in this application. An interview can bridge the gap between the examiner and the applicant with regard to the substantive matters at issue in an application, can help to advance prosecution and identify patentable subject matter. The applicant is invited to contact the examiner requesting an interview if the applicant believes such a discussion will advance the prosecution of this patent application or serve to develop/clarify outstanding issues in the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A claim term is functional when it recites a feature "by what it does rather than by what it is". Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(g), citing In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971) and Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be rendered indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971).
In the present case, claim 9 limitation “wherein the diffusion layer is a pure-diffuse enamel layer” is unclear as it recites functional language without providing a discernable boundary on what element of the layer performs the claimed function. Specifically, it is unclear if a specific material/structure/element must be present in the diffusion layer to perform the function of being an enamel that is ‘pure diffusing’. The term does not appear to be a well-known structure or a term of the art. The instant specification (filed 10/10/2024) recites in ipsis verbis the generic claim language and is silent with regard to elucidating this limitation. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned, rendering Claim 9 as indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be as best understood in light of ¶0045 of the instant disclosure (PG-PUB), and treated as: “wherein the diffusion layer comprises a coating”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hirata et al. (US 2025/0093680 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hirata discloses: A visual indicator assembly (¶0061: video display apparatus 1) comprising: a retroreflective layer (FIG. 14:5; ¶0006, 0089: retroreflector 5); and a diffusion layer (FIG. 14:334) coupled to and positioned over at least a portion of the retroreflective layer, wherein the diffusion layer reduces reflection of light from the retroreflective layer for at least one viewpoint relative to the visual indicator assembly (¶0082, 0089, 0111, 0247: the image emitting surface of the retroreflector 5 may be provided with the video light control sheet 334 [diffusion layer] in order to eliminate the ghost images and to control the diffuse property in the unnecessary directions).
Regarding Claim 4, Hirata discloses the visual indicator assembly according to Claim 1, as above. Hirata further discloses: wherein the diffusion layer allows reflection of light from the retroreflective layer from at least one angle relative to the visual indicator assembly (¶0247, 0111: the video light control sheet 334 comprises a viewing-angle control film (VCF) that controls the divergence angle of the video light emitted from the liquid crystal display panel 13 in a desired direction; ¶0118: The video light control sheet 334 is configured such that the tilt angle θ1 is to be fitted with the emission direction of the retroreflected light. As a result, the abnormal light can be absorbed while the normal reflection light can be transmitted without loss; see e.g., FIGS. 8 & 14 showing angle as claimed).
Regarding Claim 5, Hirata discloses the visual indicator assembly according to Claim 4, as above. Hirata further discloses: further comprising a visual indicator, wherein the visual indicator is visible from the at least one angle (¶0080-82: information display system is suitable for the viewer who is viewing the air floating video from right front and obliquely above, where the video light travels toward eyes of the viewer, and therefore, the viewer can view the high-luminance air floating video).
Regarding Claim 7, Hirata discloses the visual indicator assembly according to Claim 1, as above. Hirata further discloses: wherein the retroreflective layer comprises a retroreflective base layer and a retroreflective component layer, wherein the retroreflective base layer includes a visual indicator (¶0081: light is made incident on the liquid crystal panel 11 to generate a video light flux, and the video light flux is made incident on the retroreflector 5 to form the air floating image 3; ¶0063, 0093: primary light ray of the video light enters the retroreflector 5, and is reflected on the two reflection surfaces and then forms the air floating video 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Hirata discloses the visual indicator assembly according to Claim 1, as above. Hirata further discloses: wherein the diffusion layer is a pure-diffuse enamel layer (¶0088: the video light control sheet, for example is manufactured by Shin-Etsu Polymer Co., Ltd. and is provided with a synthetic resin).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata et al. (US 2025/0093680 A1) in view of Minami et al. (US 9,774,832 B1).
Regarding Claims 2-3, Hirata discloses the visual indicator assembly according to Claim 1, as above. Although Hirata discloses the diffusion layer reducing reflection of light at longer wavelengths (¶0115: the video light control sheet is optimally tilted with respect to the X axis as illustrated in FIG. 4 to reduce the large viewable moire with long wavelength and low frequency), Hirata does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the diffusion layer reduces reflection of light in a visible light spectrum (clm 2); wherein the diffusion layer reduces reflection of light in an infrared spectrum (clm 3).
Minami is related to Hirata with respect to a visual indicator assembly comprising a retroreflective structure with a diffusion layer (cols. 5, 8, 10), and Minami teaches: wherein the diffusion layer reduces reflection of light in a visible light spectrum (clm 2) (col. 10-11: The diffusion member 11 comprises a light shielding surface capable of diffusely reflecting of visible light); wherein the diffusion layer reduces reflection of light in an infrared spectrum (clm 3) (col. 8: the screen 10 includes the diffusion member 11 for diffusely reflecting visible light and the infrared light shielding filter 12 covering the diffusion member for preventing diffuse reflection of the infrared light on the projection surface of the screen 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the visual indicator assembly of Hirata in view of Minami to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a diffusion layer is known and would be selected to enables the screen 10 to be projected images visibly from the visible light projector 2 and enhance stage effect produced by the projection system 1 while improving the accuracy of measurement of the object, as taught in col. 10 of Minami.
Regarding Claim 6, Hirata discloses the visual indicator assembly according to Claim 4, as above. Minami (see claim 2 rejection supra) teaches: wherein the at least one angle is perpendicular to a surface of the visual indicator assembly (col. 8; see FIG. 4 showing reflection of light including an angle perpendicular to a surface of the visual indicator assembly 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the visual indicator assembly of Hirata in view of Minami to satisfy the claimed condition, because such an angle is known and would be selected to define an angle of view, as taught in col. 4 of Minami.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata et al. (US 2025/0093680 A1) in view of Ellsworth et al. (US 2016/0339337 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Hirata discloses the visual indicator assembly according to Claim 7, as above. Ellsworth is related to Hirata with respect to a visual indicator assembly comprising a retroreflective and diffusion layer (¶0037-38, 0040), and Ellsworth teaches: wherein the visual indicator is an augmented reality (AR) code (¶0002, 0003: fiducial markers integrated into a retroreflective screen to create an augmented reality experience in which the user perceives the retroreflected images and may also interact with objects in the real world; ¶0047: the components and/or data structures may be implemented using programming languages, computer programs and/or computing devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the visual indicator assembly of Hirata in view of Ellsworth to satisfy the claimed condition, because such an AR code is known and would be utilized in a gaming environment where the rules of the game, the size of the retroreflective screen, and typical ranges of distance and angles of the user from the retroreflective screen during game play may be used to determine a spatial distribution of fiducials that provides tracking information even when a game piece or a portion of a user's body occludes some of the fiducials, as taught in paragraph ¶0025 of Ellsworth.
Other Relevant Documents Considered
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Takahashi et al. (US 20240036634 A1) discloses a visual indicator assembly comprising a retroreflective and diffusion layer, and further satisfying some of the additional conditions as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-1800 (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights